ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. Before the High Court, a petition was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the order dated 25-5-2004 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Defence Colony), New Delhi, under Section 145 CrPC in respect of Flat No. 544/14, Zakir Nagar, Okhla. The High Court dismissed the petition by a non-speaking order. Against that order of the High Court the appellant has filed this SLP. 3. The arguments were addressed before us for some length on the question as to who was in possession of the property on the relevant date. It is also contended that there being no apprehended breach of peace as per the observation made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, there is no need to pass an order under Section 145 CrPC. 4. Though the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate runs to three to four pages, no reasons are set out for reaching the conclusion that the property was in possession of Sajjid Hussain i.e. the respondent. The learned Magistrate merely observed that on perusing the records, he was satisfied that Sajjid Hussain, the respondent was in actual possession of the property at the time of passing the preliminary order under Section 145(1) CrPC. Firstly, there is no discussion about the details of the report submitted nor the documents referred to in the said report. We are informed by the counsel for the appellant that the police has submitted a report while the matter was pending in the High Court in the writ petition filed by the respondent which supports the appellants contention. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should have given specific reasons with reference to the material placed on record rather than making a bald observation that the respondent was in actual possession of the property. Moreover, what is stated by the police officer in his report is not the final word. The Magistrate ought to apply his mind independently. That apart, we find that the finding of actual possession of the respondent was with a reference to the date of preliminary order which is not the relevant date that is contemplated by the provisions of Section 145 CrPC. For these reasons we set aside the impugned order and direct the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to consider the matter afresh with utmost expedition after giving notice to the petitioner and respondents. 5. For these reasons we set aside the impugned order and direct the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to consider the matter afresh with utmost expedition after giving notice to the petitioner and respondents. 5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.